Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 01:44:22 -0500
Message-Id: <199503040644.BAA14201@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
To: baidarka@imagelan.com
From: hazel.2@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul W Hazel)
Subject: RE: Traditional design
Having taken just enough college anthropology to become _really_ ignorant,
how about these notions:
a.)There exists a certain range, or envelope, within which a tool (can
opener, kayak, etc.,) can be designed and still be functional.
b.)The form of the tool depends on the materials available for its fabrication.
If these seem like reasonable assumptions, you're already on the hook! ;)
Funtion (in 'a') can only be defined in the context of a tool's use (which
to some extent implies that a tool exists before it has a function - more on
this later). How can we possibly say that a fancy, jewel-encrusted, blunt
-edged ceremonial dagger is less practical than a fighting knife or a
harvesting sickle? If it serves the needs of its makers it is perfectly
practical within the limits of its function. Likewise, a ceremonial kayak is
just as practical as a hunting craft, given the functional envelope within
which it is designed to serve. The apparent differences in practicality are
entirely constructions of our own western minds.
Consider this - Every year an overwhelming majority of North Americans
obtain a large plant, stuff it into their living rooms, decorate it with all
manner of glitzy baubles and lights, and fill the space beneath it with
wrapped objects.
If civilization ended abruptly at this time of year and an archeologist from
a non-Christian culture found these things, would he be correct in assuming
that we all worship Christmas trees? Were the inhabitants all devout
Christians? Perhaps they were a culture of Druids and the things under the
tree were offerings to the tree spirits? Would the trees be labeled as
impractical ceremonial objects?
My long-winded point here is that we CAN'T know the significance, nor judge
the practicality of another culture's trappings unless we can actually
communicate with them and ask individuals what they mean. This is why there
is always controversy in fields of prehistory and even history. Different
persons can painstakingly piece together the same set of clues and arrive at
perfectly reasonable, and completely different, conclusions (I'm not flaming
anyone here - this is a long-recognized challenge in anthropology).
To make matters worse, even if an accurate interpretation of some artifact
is stumbled upon, which segment of the culture does it apply to? Christmas
trees are erected every year by persons who run the gamut from avowed
atheists to devout Christians, so it would be a gross oversimplification to
say that Christmas trees are a religious symbol.
So are the carvings and decorations on kayaks the result of deeply held
religious beliefs, or the result of the hunting age males sitting around and
literally whittling away the time during long Arctic nights? Are these
artifacts less practical if their impact was emotional or psychological
rather than physical? In who's world are they less practical?
As far as the variations in the physical form of the kayak, one or two
examples of a particular style don't imply anything at all. It certainly is
not unreasonable to make broad cultural _assumptions_ about style and
construction techniques, especially if the number of samples is large. But
have you thought about some of the things that certain segments of our
population due to cars to make them appear different? Remember the nose art
on the aircraft of WWII? What about the art on modern fighter aircraft -
does it have function or did some grafitti artist sneak onto the carrier and
paint the skull and cross bones on the tails of those F14's? ... ?
(Un)fortunately, I'm about out of time and I haven't gotten to the concept
of a tool existing before it has a function, or the notion that available
materials are really an afterthought in tool design, not an initial factor.
I'll save those for you. 8)
Paul Hazel